Climate change is one of those stories that deserves more attention…but we haven’t figured out how to engage the audience in that story in a meaningful way. When we do do those stories, there does tend to be a tremendous amount of lack of interest on the audience’s part.

But days after he said this, CNN did find a way to cover climate change on the program OutFront (5/21/14). It looked like this:

For those not up to speed: Game show host Pat Sajak tweeted this: “I now believe global warming alarmists are unpatriotic racists knowingly misleading for their own ends. Good night.” It was all in jest, you see–though Sajak seems to be dismissive of climate change nonetheless.

Don’t think, though, that Coulter’s was the only voice that CNN brought on to talk about whether climate change was real. Oh, no–the interview was preceded by a taped segment in which entertainment reporter Nischelle Turner, to get an opinion on whether Sajak was right or not, turned to global warming-denier Sen. Marco Rubio: “Sajak’s skepticism is echoed by others, most notably Florida Senator Marco Rubio.” (She also quoted a tweet from an actual climate scientist!)

As we’ve noted before, some of CNN‘s previous climate coverage has involved putting climate deniers on Crossfire. But this is actually worse–not just treating deniers as though they’re a legitimate part of a climate “debate,” but acting as though they’re the only viewpoints worth hearing from.

Does this seem like the best way to “engage the audience in a meaningful way”?

Activism Director and and Co-producer of CounterSpinPeter Hart is the activism director at FAIR. He writes for FAIR's magazine Extra! and is also a co-host and producer of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. He is the author of The Oh Really? Factor: Unspinning Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly (Seven Stories Press, 2003). Hart has been interviewed by a number of media outlets, including NBC Nightly News, Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor, the Los Angeles Times, Newsday and the Associated Press. He has also appeared on Showtime and in the movie Outfoxed. Follow Peter on Twitter at @peterfhart.

Climate change denial is an example of how corrupt the media have become. Pundits with no scientific credentials whatever are still routinely contradicting roughly 98% of the world-wide scientific community and insisting in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that man-made global warming is a hoax. What could anyone gain from perpetrating such a hoax? They don’t tell us.

What can be gained from global warming denial, however, is obvious. Substantial political campaign contributions go from the major oil companies to climate-change denying candidates for public office who spend then on media advertisements. As a result, the media continue to employ thoroughly dishonest, disreputable pundits.

It’s funny, I still see people throw around the red-herring term “liberal media” on a regular basis. CNN chooses to address a climate change denier with a known, execrable Right wing windbag, with some other windbags thrown in. It would be an apt scene for a satire of the media and politics.

I would say that CNN certainly does have an issue with presenting climate change as a story, but it’s not with the audience. If they choose to deal with the issue as a cartoonish farce from a black comedy, then why should their audience find interest or import in the subject?

We are aware of thousands of peer-reviewed studies indicating that the current change is far more drastic than any since humanity has been on the planet, and we’re the sheep? Yet you can listen to oil company-backed deniers with NO scientific background and we’re the sheep?
If we are, I’d rather be a sheep than a lemming following idiots off the cliff. For their sake, and the sake of all of us, I hope you have no children.

Ann Coulter is just as qualified to talk about global warming as Al Gore or any of the scam artists who are perpetrating this con. Ms. Coulter has a way of bringing fresh insight into the subjects she addresses.

First word of advice to anyone, when someone says the science is settled on a subject such as global warming they don’t know what they are talking about. That has been proven by the fact the hoaxers have begun using climate change as they learned the actual data didn’t completely support the global warming charge.

Climate change is a much better term. The climate is in a constant state of change so it is easier to scare people with that term.

This movement all comes down to take people’s wealth and freedom. If most of the proponents of this theory actually believed it they would not be creating such a large carbon footprint warning people of its alleged dangers.

Justin Wachin – Ann Coulter is just as qualified to talk about global warming as Al Gore or any of the scam artists who are perpetrating this con. Ms. Coulter has a way of bringing fresh insight into the subjects she addresses.

Can I have what your smoking? You are the most insipid example of a single-wing parrot I have seen; I think your really Tush Limburger or Glen Beckerhead with a fake handle. I feel sorry for anyone around you, having to put up with someone like you who has zero clue about reality. Ann Coulter is walking mouth with no Brain; the only reason any of you moron uber-richt wingers like her is because she doesn’t have enough intelligence to threaten the ‘small head’ you use to think with.
_____________________________________

David 17 hours aog – Man made climate change is a hoax, the weather has never been set in stone and has been continuously changing over billions of years, what sheep you are.

Everyone dies, therefore there can be no murder. If you were any less intelligent, they would have to come in and change your potting soil, and water you twice a week.
Do you have any clue how completely clues and vapid you sound. You’re not even able to come up with a appropriate or consistent analogy for a point. If we are sheep, then you are sheep-dip.

Does this seem like the best way to “engage the audience in a meaningful way”?

I again have to say that these people want a meaningful dialogue about as much as pig wants to learn to fly a 747 airline. They are terrified of their jobs and would not dare ‘think’ anything they were not told to think. Instead of calling them Pundits, we should label them Pun-dont’s.

NASA has concluded that there has been no warming for 16 years while CO2 emissions have skyrocketed.

Not one prophecy from a green prophet/climate scientists has come to fruition. Hansen said in the 1980s that the warming would rise out of the statistical noise by the 1990s. Epic fail. We were told by climate scientists that the Arctic ice cap would be gone, conservatively, by 2013. Prof Viner said in the 20th century that winter snow would soon be a thing of the past. Wrong! Tornadoes and hurricanes would increase in frequency! We have seen hurricane activity decline over the last twenty years and this is the longest stretch since the civil war without a major hurricane strike on the US. This year tornadoes are down by 50% and the two prior years have seen record low tornadoes. Drought levels are normal, overall sea ice is up and Antarctic sea ice is at a record high.

Not one climate scientists predicted the current pause and there are a dozen competing excuses from climate scientists to explain it. The models are all wrong! The don’t even agree with each other so they use an average.

Zucker is full of it. When he says, “When we do do those stories, there does tend to be a tremendous amount of lack of interest on the audience’s part,” what he REALLY means is, “There is a tremendous amount of pressure from what’s left of our advertizing base to avoid covering this topic.”

The Earth has definitely warmed since the depths of the Little Ice Age. That warming has been going on for well over 100 years. Long before man made emissions could have caused it. It’s past time for climate alarmists to wake up & realize that we’re only seeing natural cycles that have been going on for 100s of thousands of years. Not only that but we’re past peak warming for this interglacial period. Temperatures fluctuate up & down over the centuries but overall they have declined some in the last 8,000 years. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

The Earth has definitely warmed since the depths of the Little Ice Age. That warming has been going on for well over 100 years. Long before man made emissions could have caused it. – Darren
.
Total bull, the industrial revolution(s) have been going on for more then 400 years starting with wool industry’s move to the canals for shipping. with Forests being wiped out to make tar and glass. There were burning coals and other fossils fuels then, if they weren’t cutting asserts out of the Forest for another water mill.

If your going to try and B.S., then at least pick a topic you have some clue about…

CNN, once a news leader, has morphed into a parody of FOX and Fiends. Instead of interviewing scientists engaged in climate research, they present viewers with ‘climate expert’ Ann Coulter to defend ignorant knuckleheads like Sajak and Rubio? Pathetic.

How clever of the peddlers of fossil fuel death to use the vacuous host of the most popular game show on TV as their megaphone.

To Global Warming deniers: I don’t know anything about climatology. But I have enough education to know that when I don’t know anything about a subject I should defer to the overwhelming majority opinion of the scientific community.

“”Since the Industrial Revolution, circa 1900, the burning of fossil fuels has caused a dramatic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, reaching levels unprecedented in the last 400 thousand years. This increase has been implicated as a primary cause of global warming.””

So you can’t even understand plain English? It does not say that the Industrial revolution or the burning of fossils in started in the 1900’s. It is saying the increase in burning of Fossil Fuels since around the 1900’s has resulted in unprecedented levels for the past couple of hundred thousand year, which is far more than your ‘less than 100 years’.

Industrial Revolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“”The Industrial Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840. This transition included going from hand production methods to machines, new chemical manufacturing and iron production processes, improved efficiency of water power, the increasing use of steam power, and the development of machine tools. It also included the change from wood and other bio-fuels to coal.”” – Wikipedia

“”The First Industrial Revolution evolved into the Second Industrial Revolution in the transition years between 1840 and 1870, when technological and economic progress continued with the increasing adoption of steam-powered boats, ships and railways, the large-scale manufacture of machine tools and the increasing use of machinery in steam powered factories.[13][14][15]””

“”The Industrial Revolution began in Great Britain and spread to Western Europe and the United States within a few decades. The precise start and end of the Industrial Revolution is debated among historians. Eric Hobsbawm held that it ‘broke out’ in Britain in the 1780s and was not fully felt until the 1830s or 1840s,[6] while T. S. Ashton held that it occurred roughly between 1760 and 1830.[7]””

Please note the Dates: 1760 to 1840; That means in 1940 the Original Revolution was already 100 years old even f you go by the latest date; in 2014 that makes the Revolution and the use of burning significant amounts of fossil fuels, 144 plus years old going by the date of 1870. But I suspect that little fact always escapes folks you. Your own history, and you couldn’t even find it on Wikipedia in a 1 sec search.

Also from the same Source: Wikipedia:

“”Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide. According to work published in 2007, the concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since 1750.[74] These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 800,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores.[75][76][77][78]””

Once again, the start was in 1750, that would mean that in 1950 it was already 200 years old, and today would be 216 years ago.

“”Every economic indicator suggests that the timber crisis was most acute in England from about 1570 to 1630. It is at this time that we see an unwilling but dramatic change to coal as the nation’s industrial fuel. “”

And thus we see that the dramatic increase in the use of Fossils Fuels began not in the 1900’s but in the 1600’s (300 years earlier for those of you incapable of doing the math). At one point the forests were under the protection of the Crown, and the ‘colonies’ were the major source of ‘tar’ and timber from the forests for the English crown’s navy. It was then they shifted to the significant use of Fossil Fuels for power and other things. In the 1800’s coal tar and ‘The Soho” stink were well established.

So while your entitled to your own Opinions that doesn’t include making up your own facts by mis-reading the history.
Ergo, if anyone is living in a paranoid world, it is you, by following blinding along with the Fux Snooze Nitwork goose step march of denial and trying to marginalize anyone who doesn’t blindly bow in obsequiousnesses to your Lords and Masters.

Obviously, climate change brings those allergic to fact and observation out of the woodwork. I, too, thank FAIR for watching all this junk that would cause me to smash my television. (Does anyone with a brain take CNN seriously about anything?)

CNN, AKA Completely Non-Relevant News, has turned into the National Enquirer of cable land. Spending weeks on the missing Malaysian airliner instead of focusing on real issues, their latest move, showcasing Coulter as an “expert” climatologist, is ludicrous. What next? Maybe featuring the leader of North Korea as an expert on human rights?

You can’t a meaningful way to engage with your audience? How about “Hey audience, our planet is falling apart and the world as we know it is ending unless we do something right freaking now about climate change, which exists, and there’s no denying it.” What a bunch of hack “journalists”.

Im still stunned CNN let Ann on.They are pretty much a closed network to people with differing opinions.Im sure Ann was doing the same thing Obama does.Comment on the ‘politics” of global warming.In that capacity she is better suited than any scientist.Beyond that I have heard her read the data that totally refutes the very notion of the theory.

Good to see the Corporate Noise Network is doing its job. Instead of allowing the voices of the evil conspiracy of climate scientists to brainwash good Americans, its far better to present the fair and balance of both the political far Right and radical Right.

Its about time we hear the truth from that damn “liberal media” anyway.

I have come to the conclusion that there is no hope. The Kochs and other oil and gas men have too much money. Until the United States is covered in spilled oil like Lousiana and other accidents, people will be allowed to ignore the science and continue to wrap themselves in the comfort of paid climate assassins and those that pay them to spread the lie. I weep for my children and their children. At some point, and I do not believe it will be in my life time, there will be a reckoning that we have changed the climate and truly threaten large portions of the human race. People will not face the hard reality of spewing carbon in the air is unsustainable for human life. But people want cheap oil and they have been lathered up to reflectively resist right wing generated ideas such as cap and trade. The Kochs will continue to make oodles of money they can never spend. I have no idea what drives them because they have more money they could ever spend. They are resisting the Detroit bankruptcy settlement over about $200 million in state payment to solve the pension crisis. A true human would volunteer to pay the deficit out of his own money if he had $50 billion (or whatever it is). I would spend the same percentage of my net worth it was be of their net worth to make sure all those pensioners have their pension. I know that the me first human beings we have created would never consider that if they were in the Detroit pensioner spot, they would appreciate the help. But since they are not directly affected, they will not want “their tax dollars going to pay for the management of Detroit.” Instead they will be wards of the state unable to engage in the economy. When did we stop looking long term and at the ramifications of the actions behind the length of our nose? The climate is a disaster about to happen and no one cares. When Miami is under water, will Iowa chip in to pay to help? I think we have created a nation of “rugged individualists” and it will the end of the human race. I weep for my children and their children when they arrive.

What Zucker might as well have said is, “…but we haven’t figured out how to stop bending over for the powerful fossil fuel interests.”

And what trolls like Eddy Aruda and Darren might as well have said, “Hi, I’m a shill for the fossil fuel industry. Here’s some industry propaganda I’d love for you to not think critically about. Hey, it works for those sheeple over on the conservative sites.”

‘And what trolls like Eddy Aruda and Darren might as well have said, “Hi, I’m a shill for the fossil fuel industry. Here’s some industry propaganda I’d love for you to not think critically about. Hey, it works for those sheeple over on the conservative sites.” ‘

This is how you react to my presenting facts? I’m not a conservative as a quick glance at my blog will reveal. Then again facts & research aren’t your strong points are they TeeJay?

Got to go now. I have to call Exxon Mobile aacounting to see where my check is since I haven’t gotten a single dime from them.

The funniest thing about the whole global warming debate is something missed here completely.I hear people on this sight yelling about our fossil fuel industry and the koch brothers and all the rest but the miss the point.WE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM!This country is the only country that refused to sign the protocol among industrialized countries -and yet we are the only country making, and surpassing all standards and quotas.The problem is over there…….In China and India and other places.China soon will have more carbon emissions than the whole world combined.You dummies are yelling at the wrong people.And here is a real wakeup call.China has a message for you……GO POUND SAND!You want to really stop so called global warming……..Prepare to invade and conquer mainland China.You first.As for my side of the coin,we are against any pollution.And hope to work on that.But as the world quickly cools we note your models were all wrong in their predictions.

Soren Dayton, a GOP operative and executive at New Media Strategies, is reported to be the contact for Koch Industries at NMS. Reached by phone yesterday by ThinkProgress, Dayton exclaimed, “I’m not going to talk about this, thanks,” before hanging up. Lyndsey Medsker, a senior account director for NMS, spoke to ThinkProgress today. She explained that NMS also maintains the Koch Industries Twitter page, Facebook page, and has an active team working on promoting Koch Industries in the comment section of blogs and news websites.

“But as the world quickly cools we note your models were all wrong in their predictions.”

So how can the radical Right blame China if they share the same climate change denial beliefs? Who needs logic or science, right? After all, everybody knows smoking never caused lung cancer. Same denial tactic.

Denial of science is the problem. Nobody beats the oily American radical Right for this. They may as well be in bed with the Chinese on this. Well actually they are. Same mentality. Denial.

“Facts and research aren’t my strong points?” So, denying the facts and research of 97% of the scientific community (as you are doing) IS a strong point? Again, LOL.

According to your White House link, the government is spending $21B to MITIGATE climate change by investing in clean energy. Yet, without an ounce of integrity (and perhaps not realizing anyone would actually open the link), you claim it’s being used to “buy consensus.” Only a fossil fuel industry shill would make such a ludicrous statement.

Tell us, how does that clean energy “gravy train” compare to the ACTUAL gravy train enjoyed by the fossil fuel industry?

TeeJae, I’m with you in opposing govt support for the oil industry as much as I’m against the rest of the corporatist mess progressivism has created.

You haven’t refuted my point just shown your blindness. The govt spending $21 billion on the Anthropogenic Global Warming hoax has produced a massive industry that lobbies to continue the gravy train. Just like any other bunch of parasites leeching off of the govt & the taxpayers. The climate industry is no different than the defense industry or the prison/law enforcement industry in that regard.

@Darren- “the corporatist mess progressivism has created.”
?!?! That doesn’t even make any sense. Progressives fight AGAINST corporatism.

“The govt spending $21 billion…has produced a massive industry that lobbies to continue the gravy train.”
At least it’s a “gravy train” we can all climb aboard because it will SAVE the planet, not DESTROY it the way the fossil fuel industry is doing.

“Just like any other bunch of parasites leeching off of the govt & the taxpayers.”
Again, how is putting infrastructure in place to SAVE the planet and its people from total destruction a bad thing?! It’s not “leeching” taxpayers if those taxpayers (except for a tiny ignorant fringe minority) are on board with it.

“The climate industry is no different than the defense industry or the prison/law enforcement industry in that regard.”
You mean other than both of the latter industries being DESTRUCTIVE to people and the planet?!

Good god, you’re either a fossil fuel industry shill, or something is seriously wrong with you.

‘ “the corporatist mess progressivism has created.”
?!?! That doesn’t even make any sense. Progressives fight AGAINST corporatism.’

Oh, TeeJae, today’s progressives think they’re fighting corporatism but since they support the regulatory & legal structures that support it they actually help it. Progressives are the useful idiots of the corporations.

The original progressives had a different POV. From the 1912 Progressive Party platform:

Geez, Darren. Not only are you delusional, you are intellectually dishonest, as well. Let me go ahead and quote the rest of that paragraph that you so conveniently decided to leave out:

“but the existing concentration of vast wealth under a corporate system, unguarded and uncontrolled by the Nation, has placed in the hands of a few men enormous, secret, irresponsible power over the daily life of the citizen–a power insufferable in a free government and certain of abuse.

This power has been abused, in monopoly of National resources, in stock watering, in unfair competition and unfair privileges, and finally in sinister influences on the public agencies of State and Nation. We do not fear commercial power, but we insist that it shall be exercised openly, under publicity, supervision and regulation of the most efficient sort, which will preserve its good while eradicating and preventing its evils.”